The passage of a law aimed at improving access to information for deaf people should be good news. However, the recent Law No. 32724, which amends Law No. 29973, the General Law on Persons with Disabilities, has sparked a major debate about how public policies on accessibility are formulated.
By: Mónica Honores Incio*
The law stipulates that Peruvian Sign Language interpretation services must be provided by certified or accredited interpreters. In principle, promoting quality standards is a legitimate goal. The problem arises when this requirement is enacted without the government itself having implemented a national system for training, certification, accreditation, and registration that would enable professionals to meet this requirement.
In other words, a requirement is being imposed that the government has not yet made possible.
Furthermore, the bill was approved without a comprehensive process of technical consultation with organizations of deaf people, interpreter associations, specialists in communication accessibility, and other directly involved stakeholders. In matters of disability, the principle of participation is not optional; it is a right recognized by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and an essential element in designing effective regulations.
Comments submitted by specialized organizations also highlight other aspects that warrant review: If the certification requirement is enforced without transitional measures or a functioning national system, many interpreters who currently ensure access to information in news broadcasts, official announcements, emergencies, and other contexts could be prevented from performing their work—not due to a lack of competence, but because the State itself has not yet developed the mechanism to certify those competencies.
The minimum size of the box allocated to the interpreter could prove insufficient to ensure adequate comprehension of Sign Language, as it fails to account for essential elements such as facial expressions, body movements, and other linguistic components.
The proposal treats interpretation as a visual resource, when in reality it constitutes a professional linguistic service that requires comprehensive technical standards regarding resolution, lighting, contrast, placement, synchronization, and transmission quality.
The regulation continues to use only the term “people with hearing disabilities,” without expressly recognizing the Deaf community that uses Sign Language from a linguistic and cultural perspective.
The deadline set for adapting the regulation is too short to allow for a technical, participatory process that includes public consultation.
Inclusion policies must not become new barriers to exclusion.
Ensuring the quality of interpreting services is essential, but this must be accompanied by a comprehensive public policy that strengthens professional training, establishes consensus-based standards, and builds a viable, decentralized, and accessible certification system.
Accessibility is not achieved solely by passing laws. It is built through dialogue with people living with disabilities, by listening to experts, and by designing regulations that are technically sound, legally viable, and, above all, effective in guaranteeing rights.
Because a truly inclusive law does not impose impossible-to-meet requirements, but one that removes barriers and expands opportunities so that no one is left behind.
(*) Specialist in inclusive public policy.
